Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 1:2

Expand Messages
  • Jovial
    Since Isaiah is the first of the prophets, All the books of the prophets could easily be called Isaiah . The books of Torah were all named after the first
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 1, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      
      Since Isaiah is the first of the prophets, All the books of the prophets could easily be called "Isaiah".  The books of Torah were all named after the first keyword in each book.  And it's common for Jewish books to be named after the FIRST book when there are several in a collection.  I have 3 books in Hebrew sitting on my desk at the moment, two of which do that.
       
      Example 1:  נגיד ומצוה  contains the following  books
      1. נגיד ומצוה
      2. נבואת הילד (which also appears in Shulchan Aruch)
      3. לחם מן השמים
       
      Example 2: I have another book called "נבואת הילד" which contains these books
      1. נבואת הילד
      2. אגרת סוד הגאולה
      3. משרא קטרין
      4. מאמר היחוד
      5. מסורת החכמה
      6. מגלת אמרפל
      7. הוראה על שאלת המלאכים
       
      So נבואת הילד gets the honor of being the title work when it's the FIRST book in a collection of 7, but it's not in the title when it appears in Nagid UMitvah or Shulchan Aruch or Otser Midrashim.  The books titled "נבואת הילד" contains not only נבואת הילד from Shulchan Aruch, but also Abraham HaLevi's commentary on that book.
       
      Now these happen to be on my desk because I was examining the textual differences between the version of נבואת הילד that is popular in Israel today (Abraham HaLevi's version) with the other strain.
       
      These are from the 16th-18th centuries, and perhaps finding older books closer to the time of the Gospel would be of more value.  But this is just what's sitting on my desk, and it's not like they were written by men trying to defend the Gospel either.  They were just Jewish rabbis carrying on an age-old tradition. 
       
      But there's plenty of evidence of this occuring beyond the examples I've given just from what's sitting on my desk.  Any mention of "Isaiah" as the source could be considered a generic term for the books of the prophets.
       
      JOE ⅥEⅬ
       
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 8:22 AM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Updated Resources at CCC Website

       

      I've updated some of the NTTC resources at the Curtisville Christian Church website
      (the homepage is http://www.curtisvillechristian.org ) --

      (1) The multi-part presentation about Mark 16:9-20 has been slightly revised. New comments accompany the replica of the final columns of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus.

      (2) The essay "A Defense of 'in the prophets' in Mark 1:2," which I recently posted here, is presented on its own page, as an answer to the online essay by Dr. Dan Wallace that defends "in Isaiah the prophet." (I was hoping for some discussion here about this essay.)

      (3) Some of the links have been updated (but probably there are still some broken ones.)

      (4) The diagram of my solution to the Synoptic Problem has been simplified. (No more "Proto-Mark B.")

      I also added a mention of the Google Books Library Bookshelf where I've accumulated links to many downloadable books about NTTC and closely related topics.

      If anyone would like to look around the site to check for mistakes, broken links, formatting errors, etc. in the parts about NTTC, I might trade a bright shiny ruble for the effort.

      In other news: I found, in the 1885 American Journal of Philology (Vol. VI) at Google Books, a fascinating article by J. Rendel Harris on pages 25-40, "Conflate Readings of the New Testament." A lot of Harris' proposals are highly speculative but interesting and thought-provoking. He mentions, among other things, variant-units at Mt. 1:7, 1:10, 13:35, 21:9, 21;15, Mark 5:1, 6:14, 6:33, 8:26, Mark 9:38, 9:49, Luke 12:18, and 24:53.

      (At one point Harris, referring to Hort's eight examples of conflation, makes this astounding claim: "a single one, correct in all its details, would provide the chronological subordination of the texts which give combined readings to those which do not make the combination." Unbecrazylievable! It's like saying that an entire castle cannot be older than its youngest part.)

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.